So, gamer question. Specifically, GM question....
even more specifically....when, if ever, is it okay to dramatically "cheat"? to preserve your story? how much plot protection do you give your main heroes and villains?
Which wins-- the win of a clever or unexpected victory of the heros or the win of a well-told and detailed storyline?
Say for instance, the villain of your three act play is facing defeat at the end of act one.
Perhaps the players did something you didn't expect. Perhaps its just the dice. In any case, for whatever reason, the villain is about to be defeated or captured. Do you "let" the players defeat him, even though it possibly ruins your story? OR do you decide to give him an out, because the story requires it? or do you let the capture happen, "knowing" he will slip and escape? What do you do?
Also, do you do the same with players? if the villain can be defeated from a bad die roll, do the heroes face the same risk? Having a hero die from a random critical is just as bad for the story as a defeated villain, after all. Do the players get any sort of "plot protection" by being main characters?
Just curious how different storyguides out there run their worlds. :)
This is a touchy subject. In the past (I'm talking 6+ years or more ago) I was strongly of the mind, influenced HEAVILY by the White Wolf school of drama, story and plot. Meaning... FUDGE, CHEAT, do anything to make the story continue on... plan.
Then I met my friend Karl. The biggest thing I "learned" from Karl in gaming was that he loves rolling the dice in front of players. All the time. Period. No plot immunity. No holding back. No fudge.
And... Oh. My. God.
To me... that became a revelation. It actually made me come to enjoy being the Storyteller/Game Master more and more and MORE with every die roll. Let me explain.
But first.
Let me say, there are some game rule systems that prohibit this act of rolling the dice in front of all players. For example - the game I'm GMing now (Star Wars WEG D6 rules) allow players to spend Character Points on their die rolls BEFORE the Difficulty Target/Check is known. So that makes any "contested check" harder to have. I suppose as GM I could just wait and roll the dice after... but I like the kinetic feel of everyone rolling together, so I've taken to rolling behind my hand (on the front table) then revealing the roll after the players say "that's their final answer".
Now... Why is rolling in front of players better (to me)?
I'm a habitual procrastinator... That's a little of the effect that happens with this. But I've found that either through actuality or desperation - the things I procrastinate at ALWAYS seem to come out better than if I meticulously plan. Meaning... anything I design (as a Graphic Designer) or create for the "details" of a story as GM of the game - I actually find I get a more exciting, energetic, fluid CREATION when I create or ad lib on the spot, last minute.
So... in GMing... I tend to build the story in three segments:
1. I build the overall ideas, the general ideas of the story in hooks that I call "road signs" for myself. I have these in mind and noted, so that when my players GET to that crossroads I choose the better of the story (as dictated by the current flow of the game) from the various "road signs" I've envisioned might happen. I find this allows me to have my over-ambitious creative mind have the 3-4 ideas for a situation "ready" in basics, then I choose last minute and then literally ad lib the details in game. And DAMN it's exhilerating - because even I don't know where the story might lead (in detail, because I still know the general direction).
2. No solutions. I never ever ever build solutions to the plots, problems, or questions of my stories. If there is a clear "puzzle" that needs an answer, I will make one (but still be open to interpretation!) but overall... I create the question or problem or threat and never give myself the "benefit" of building an ending to the story. That way I can never "railroad" a plot toward what I *think* is the solution. Because I never have one - anything is a great solution. Sometimes I can see obvious ideas, but other times players surprise me. And DAMN it's exhilerating - because even I don't know where the story might lead (in detail, because I still know the general direction).
3. NPCs tell my story. I tend to build stories with the NPCs and locations as the "plot" of the story. I come up with the general story, then find the NPCs or the location (which brings factions or enviromental parts). With those in mind I stop planning a plot. I actually "ask" those NPCs/Locations what the story is. Sometimes I can't do that until the day of game. But if I know "who" the NPC is, their motivations, the steriotype of personality I begin them with, etc... I can "anticipate" how they react and literally create the plot on the fly.... again. And DAMN it's exhilerating - because even I don't know where the story might lead (in detail, because I still know the general direction).
So...
Why talk about all that???
Because rolling the dice, in front of the players as much as I possibly can. Does all of the above - on the fly. It literally FORCES me (and the group) to deal with the fickle fate that is the luck of the die roll. And once that is embraced. Once you're willing to let go and let the die help you tell the story - rather the DETAILS of the story... then you aren't dealing with a one person's whims of what "might" be the best story. You get to interpret the BEST story on the spot.
And most of all.... players also become sharper - because they can "know" that in the end, it's not their GM that's determining their character's fate (good or bad) it's literally fate! As in what the dice (or rule engine) was always intended to DO in RPGs = be the simulation of luck/fate/karma, etc...
Then again...
I've often "shaved" a few hit points off of villains in fun battles to SURPRISE the player (after they just described an awesome action) and tell them the villain falls (even if that villain has 2,5,10, etc... "hit points" left. THAT, in my humble opinion, is more an action of PACING by a good GM than it is fudging the numbers - since it would be obvious that the PCs WILL be taking the villains down in 1-2 rounds. Why slog through more and waste time to get the technical when the dramatic pace is much better served?!!!
So...
Do I fudge die rolls or rules, in favor or against? Rarely. I'd rather let "fate" help me be inspired to adjust the story to the roll of the dice!
Do my player characters have "plot immunity"? Yes and no. As Game Master, I am the arbiter of the rules - so I let the rules play. I am also a "director" to set the pacing of the story, so I will guide the use of the rules to build the story. But I am also a game player at the table as well as an audience member. Meaning... I am a FAN of the "heroes" of the story - the player characters ARE the main characters! So in the end I CAN play the most evil and powerful dragon they've ever faced as players in any RPG (and characters in the story) and I will fight tooth and nail, using every evil power I can to help that dragon WIN! But still be able to CHEER when a hero rolls a NATURAL 20!! to hit the Big Bad! (hehe, actually sometimes I grown or complain, yell explanatories, etc... etc..! all to give the player fun satisfaction of BEATING the dragon - and me as GM, cause sometimes players like that!!)
But in the end - I'm on the side of the best story, generally that's the best success of the PCs. Sometimes it's not.
Either way - why "cheat", "fudge" or do anything that takes away from the AWESOME UNKNOWN of the fate in the dice?!?!!!
Afterall, I don't want to KNOW the end of the story, I want to be as excited at the "end" as the OTHER (stressing the idea of "other") players!
To do otherwise would be cheating myself!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Plot Immunity?
Another gaming question for you all.
In several genre of games (D&D, super heros, white wolf, Ars magica), the players are sometimes clearly head and shoulders above most other people. Sometimes its the nature of the genre (supers, white wolf, etc) and other times its a gradual thing where the players become powerful over time (D&D, Ars).
In these settings and genres, the "reality" of the world is that the player is a complete bad*ss and can wipe the floor with most challengers. Either he's a super hero or a vampire or an ancient cranky wizard that throws fire. Whatever reason...he's going to stomp 90% of the world around him.
My question is this:
How often do you let that reality actually get reflected at the gaming table? How often do you have encounters that let the *player* be that bad*ss?
For example: You have a supers game where one player is Amazing Man, a brick that can take fire from a battleship and not flinch. How often do you have an actual (possibly comical, possible serious) scene where Amazing man is faced with something that isn't a threat, but isn't even close to the same weight class?
Say...a scene where Amazing man is faced against a local biker gang. yeah. There are 20 of them. But not one of them can hurt him. You know it. The player knows it. but you play it out anyhow, knowing its not going to be a threat of any kind...just a superhero...being...well...a superhero. It is so not a threat it turns into a RP scene more than anything else. but It gives the player a chance to ham it up and bend a motorcycle in two and throw out some good one-liners...
Despite how satisfying these scenes can be for the player, I've noticed there's not a lot of these scenes.
and I was wondering why.
I think it comes down to time management. a given session has only so many hours (usually not enough) and usually have a lot of players for the GM to juggle and entertain....so usually theres some plot or common threat that involves everyone....and often ends up in some dramatic high tension challenging battle.
So essentially ever session ends up being like a TV episode. plot. build up. climax. resolution. Sometimes it spills over to a couple sessions....but theres rarely any "day in the life" scenes to contrast this "threat of the week" dynamic. The easy victorys and such are assumed to happen offcamera, just like all the easy boring missions on the Enterprise arn't worth an episode.
Why is that a problem? Well, I think that it denies the player a chance to feel the reality that, yes, most of the time, he wins. That the supervillians that give him pause and a real fight really *are* few and far between. If every week, Amazing Man fights something thats not only a challenge, but cleans his clock, the character has lost his feel, because he's *not* the unstoppable brick he was made to be. the reality is...the last 10 sessions, he's gotten his butt kicked. a lot. which isn't the world reality...but its definitely the game table reality.
Does Amazing man win every single battle? No. but does he win most of them? Yes. And sometimes it shouldn't even be a contest. Heck, it might even be a fun way to start a scene....in media res..setting up the hero in the middle of stopping some completely trivial crime. sort of like a james bond teaser intro...with capes.
So, when you run a a game, how often do you have a "throwaway" random encounter or the easy win victory?
When was the last time you had one as a player?
It's funny, as a GM that's so interested in planning great stories and also so excited to *show* those great stories (and neat NPCs/threats) sometimes ...I get bogged down in the details of having it play out... Even in D&D games with minor threats (that I know are minor threats) end up BEING "encounters". And "encounters" end up taking hour(s), even the ones that aren't threats.
Then... combine the many many plots, events, NPCs, etc... mix all that in and sometimes there's not "time" to wedge in the moments YOU mention. Rather, more correctly, a GM forgets to include those moments. Which stinks.
That said.
I laughed out loud (above) because I literally JUST did something like this in my last episode of my new Star Wars campaign. Star Wars characters are as bigger than life as your "Amazing Man" but they're meant to be cinematic - and that's what (I believe) you're talking about here.
In my last episode "OF SPICE & MEN" our fringers (think Star Wars meets Firefly campaign!) were dealing with a couple different things at the same time. One group was conning + gambling, while the other was scrounging in the underbelly of the Cantina/Shadowport. The two in the underbelly (a Duros pilot & his Battle-Droid) found a large crate, behind the crate slowly rose one, then two alien beings - the sentient plant-like Revweyen. The droid, paranoid for his owner, couldn't hear the mental communication effect talking to the pilot ... and after some negotiation determined the best method of discussion would be to ZAP the two aliens with stun blasts. To the point. After 20-30 minutes of fun role-play with the group... The droid determined this action and the player was ready to roll initiative. THEN ... nope. ZAP! they're down!
Here's the thing... while I agree in theory that system doesn't completely dictate the way we can role-play. I do know that my players (and I) have been SO accustomed to the "roll initiative" and 5' squares of D20 based games for so many years, we forgot that role-playing games don't need to be that. These aliens were clearly peaceful and in a way naive, not really understanding the violent ways these PCs were talking to them in! And they surely couldn't/wouldn't be any sort of threat.
So ZAP! and they fell. The player was almost shocked.
And so opens the reminder that some "foes" and situations can be handled through fun role-play.
The thing I hate hate hate most (and have done as a GM it unintentionally as many times as I've witnessed it as a player) is having an (group of) NPC in a battle that still has a handful of hit points, and the ONLY reason the GM is having the battle drawn out 3-4 more round (which could be 10-40 minutes of game-time!!) is either:
a. just because...
b. to whittle away resources (ammo, PC hit points, etc..)
When... in reality the GM could simply see, then say... "rest fall after a few exchanges" and end the grind... I've even said "they fall, but to show the battle continued please take 1d4 more HPs of damage and remove 1d4 ammo" if I really feel it's necessary for resource loss to the campaign/story. Because sometimes it IS, depending on the world setting or scenario.
That's my most recent story! Last Saturday! LOL
In several genre of games (D&D, super heros, white wolf, Ars magica), the players are sometimes clearly head and shoulders above most other people. Sometimes its the nature of the genre (supers, white wolf, etc) and other times its a gradual thing where the players become powerful over time (D&D, Ars).
In these settings and genres, the "reality" of the world is that the player is a complete bad*ss and can wipe the floor with most challengers. Either he's a super hero or a vampire or an ancient cranky wizard that throws fire. Whatever reason...he's going to stomp 90% of the world around him.
My question is this:
How often do you let that reality actually get reflected at the gaming table? How often do you have encounters that let the *player* be that bad*ss?
For example: You have a supers game where one player is Amazing Man, a brick that can take fire from a battleship and not flinch. How often do you have an actual (possibly comical, possible serious) scene where Amazing man is faced with something that isn't a threat, but isn't even close to the same weight class?
Say...a scene where Amazing man is faced against a local biker gang. yeah. There are 20 of them. But not one of them can hurt him. You know it. The player knows it. but you play it out anyhow, knowing its not going to be a threat of any kind...just a superhero...being...well...a superhero. It is so not a threat it turns into a RP scene more than anything else. but It gives the player a chance to ham it up and bend a motorcycle in two and throw out some good one-liners...
Despite how satisfying these scenes can be for the player, I've noticed there's not a lot of these scenes.
and I was wondering why.
I think it comes down to time management. a given session has only so many hours (usually not enough) and usually have a lot of players for the GM to juggle and entertain....so usually theres some plot or common threat that involves everyone....and often ends up in some dramatic high tension challenging battle.
So essentially ever session ends up being like a TV episode. plot. build up. climax. resolution. Sometimes it spills over to a couple sessions....but theres rarely any "day in the life" scenes to contrast this "threat of the week" dynamic. The easy victorys and such are assumed to happen offcamera, just like all the easy boring missions on the Enterprise arn't worth an episode.
Why is that a problem? Well, I think that it denies the player a chance to feel the reality that, yes, most of the time, he wins. That the supervillians that give him pause and a real fight really *are* few and far between. If every week, Amazing Man fights something thats not only a challenge, but cleans his clock, the character has lost his feel, because he's *not* the unstoppable brick he was made to be. the reality is...the last 10 sessions, he's gotten his butt kicked. a lot. which isn't the world reality...but its definitely the game table reality.
Does Amazing man win every single battle? No. but does he win most of them? Yes. And sometimes it shouldn't even be a contest. Heck, it might even be a fun way to start a scene....in media res..setting up the hero in the middle of stopping some completely trivial crime. sort of like a james bond teaser intro...with capes.
So, when you run a a game, how often do you have a "throwaway" random encounter or the easy win victory?
When was the last time you had one as a player?
It's funny, as a GM that's so interested in planning great stories and also so excited to *show* those great stories (and neat NPCs/threats) sometimes ...I get bogged down in the details of having it play out... Even in D&D games with minor threats (that I know are minor threats) end up BEING "encounters". And "encounters" end up taking hour(s), even the ones that aren't threats.
Then... combine the many many plots, events, NPCs, etc... mix all that in and sometimes there's not "time" to wedge in the moments YOU mention. Rather, more correctly, a GM forgets to include those moments. Which stinks.
That said.
I laughed out loud (above) because I literally JUST did something like this in my last episode of my new Star Wars campaign. Star Wars characters are as bigger than life as your "Amazing Man" but they're meant to be cinematic - and that's what (I believe) you're talking about here.
In my last episode "OF SPICE & MEN" our fringers (think Star Wars meets Firefly campaign!) were dealing with a couple different things at the same time. One group was conning + gambling, while the other was scrounging in the underbelly of the Cantina/Shadowport. The two in the underbelly (a Duros pilot & his Battle-Droid) found a large crate, behind the crate slowly rose one, then two alien beings - the sentient plant-like Revweyen. The droid, paranoid for his owner, couldn't hear the mental communication effect talking to the pilot ... and after some negotiation determined the best method of discussion would be to ZAP the two aliens with stun blasts. To the point. After 20-30 minutes of fun role-play with the group... The droid determined this action and the player was ready to roll initiative. THEN ... nope. ZAP! they're down!
Here's the thing... while I agree in theory that system doesn't completely dictate the way we can role-play. I do know that my players (and I) have been SO accustomed to the "roll initiative" and 5' squares of D20 based games for so many years, we forgot that role-playing games don't need to be that. These aliens were clearly peaceful and in a way naive, not really understanding the violent ways these PCs were talking to them in! And they surely couldn't/wouldn't be any sort of threat.
So ZAP! and they fell. The player was almost shocked.
And so opens the reminder that some "foes" and situations can be handled through fun role-play.
The thing I hate hate hate most (and have done as a GM it unintentionally as many times as I've witnessed it as a player) is having an (group of) NPC in a battle that still has a handful of hit points, and the ONLY reason the GM is having the battle drawn out 3-4 more round (which could be 10-40 minutes of game-time!!) is either:
a. just because...
b. to whittle away resources (ammo, PC hit points, etc..)
When... in reality the GM could simply see, then say... "rest fall after a few exchanges" and end the grind... I've even said "they fall, but to show the battle continued please take 1d4 more HPs of damage and remove 1d4 ammo" if I really feel it's necessary for resource loss to the campaign/story. Because sometimes it IS, depending on the world setting or scenario.
That's my most recent story! Last Saturday! LOL
Monday, February 7, 2011
Game Props
Did you just fry your opponent with a Force Blast? Drop a ZAP or a BLAST next to your hero for some added coolness. Energy Explosion? Take your pick from Boom, KaBoom, and the ever cool Kraka Whoom!
Fight with your brain, not your brawn? You should enjoy Dominate, Brainwave, and the always annoying Ha! Ha! Ha!.
BAM! set contains: Bif, Bam, Pow, Boom, Fwoosh, Sploorp, Thwak, Yowtch, Wham, Sniff Sniff, Bang, Poof, Thwip, Can't...Move, Ha Ha Ha.
POW! set contains: Bif, Bam, Pow, Smack, Zap, Sproing, Dominate, Choke, Swipe, Klaaang, Kraka Whoom, KerPlunk, Brainwave, Blam Blam, Kaf Kaf, Drain
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Galactus ideas
Cosmic level Vampire...
Braniac's first appearance had him as a marauder from space who stole cities from worlds, and who was (according to a prophetic tale in an LSH story) eventually going to graduate to stealing whole worlds. That's not all that different from eating them, really. For the sympathetic Galactus who sometimes appears, you could have this Anamalgam stealing worlds and preserving them somehow, and being fated to give back more than he's ever taken by reintroducing the worlds to the universe at some later date after a great catastrophe. For a Galactus/Braniac fusion who favors the more evil android, take the animated series version of Braniac, whose motivation is a desire to have all the data in the universe, and give him Galactus' hunger. He's not saving the data, he's eating it.
Braniac's first appearance had him as a marauder from space who stole cities from worlds, and who was (according to a prophetic tale in an LSH story) eventually going to graduate to stealing whole worlds. That's not all that different from eating them, really. For the sympathetic Galactus who sometimes appears, you could have this Anamalgam stealing worlds and preserving them somehow, and being fated to give back more than he's ever taken by reintroducing the worlds to the universe at some later date after a great catastrophe. For a Galactus/Braniac fusion who favors the more evil android, take the animated series version of Braniac, whose motivation is a desire to have all the data in the universe, and give him Galactus' hunger. He's not saving the data, he's eating it.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Time Traveller Team
On your time traveller...
I'd treat his "different selves" as completely different personalities almost. You know how the YOU of today is probably MUCH different than the YOU when you were in High School. Think about it that way as a time traveller. His WWII self might be very naive and wonderous in awe of his "new" time travel ability. His modern day version might be jaded a little (from the war and from his girlfriend dying) but overall he's just a "heist crook" not a killer. And his future self might have been broken, after the PCs took him to jail and let his girl die, etc... Now he's a killer, INCLUDING killing his former naive self even maybe (as a villain weakness). And then even maybe have a "good" version of himself, as if in all his "time" in jail he became a devout believer that his ways were wrong, etc... (basically like an old-school priest/... he found a "god in the machine" of time and changed) now he *might* come back to help the heroes, but believes that "god helps those who helps themselves" and will only give the PCs tiny little helps and clues to foil his former selves... and have the time-tech change (get smaller) over the different versions of himself...
In fact... I'd do that and give him different names - to show the change AND confuse the players a little. For example:
PRIMEVIL PETE = assuming that the REST of these time-characters use some sort of time-tech... I'd have just a fun random/time villain (of this same villain), be a caveman version of the time traveller, imbued with time-tech in his blood through some weird backward in time experiment the far future time traveller did... that warped himself into a neanderthal version with time-thermites in his bloodstream... heheh... that might be a fun "origin" story for the original character who was an archeologist or something who found a "Cyber-Raptor" and these old bones (his old self!) with the time-tech in the DNA. Not something HE could make biological, but he could use it like Pym-Particles to power time-tech machines... Just a fun caveman brute type that can TIME TRAVEL too!! Maybe just uses it for super super speed and big damn time-punches!
CODY CLOCK STOPPER = the WWII time traveller that TRIED to be a hero, but just wasn't suited for it, naive but a failure that only gets saved from stuff with his time-tech...
TEMPEST (aka. Mr. Minute) = Modern Day time-crook, who's a little bitter thief but not a killer yet. (I'd have his "main" name be MR MINUTE or CLOCK-CROOK or MR. MEANWHILE, hahah... though and want to be called Tempest, to be more fun like "Paste Pot Pete" who wanted to be called the Trapster, but no one would call him that!)
DR. CHRONULUS "MASTE OF THE MINUTE", "TERRORIST OF TIME" = the "near" future true Mastermind Supervillain, Doc Ock + Magneto. This guy definately would have tons of minions all with time-curcuits but I doubt he'd be trustworthy enough to give any normal supervillain minions he has time-tech. Time-tech is probably ONLY given to his robots or Cyber-Raptors!
BROTHER TOMORROW or TIME TEACHER or FATHER TIME or THE ELDER = Far future master of time who now sees the error of his ways. This guy might have a young sidekick, a squire in training like a Robin/AlterBoy... (like the Carrie/Robin from Dark Knight, a 10 year old girl called EARLY BIRD)
TERMINAL = a far future but ALTERNATE timeline version of "Brother Tomorrow" (or whatever his name is) that is fucking insane like the Joker + Sabertooth with time powers. He might put together a team "Team Terminal" of supers and give them all time/speed units to use. Who all he wants to do is "convict" and execute the other selves for "THE CRIMES OF TIME TREACHERY!!"
The fun of this is you have a virtual "team" of time villains that you could play up... They might even know of each other (the future selves know the youngers better of course) But they all have a "dislike" of the others in different ways, and might even look up to or envy or PITY their future selves. You could have fun giving them all different costumes and sidekicks they've tried over the years. I'm imagining a "Bucky" style young man with a dog sidekick (TICK-TOCK or CLOCK-CANINE or something fun). Then dream up very different cool versions of the others... figure out a KEY point that ties them all together, either a visual thing (they all have blood-shot eyes from the time travel stress) or a personality tick (they all stutter, but elder versions have it under better control only when they get mad). etc..
I'd treat his "different selves" as completely different personalities almost. You know how the YOU of today is probably MUCH different than the YOU when you were in High School. Think about it that way as a time traveller. His WWII self might be very naive and wonderous in awe of his "new" time travel ability. His modern day version might be jaded a little (from the war and from his girlfriend dying) but overall he's just a "heist crook" not a killer. And his future self might have been broken, after the PCs took him to jail and let his girl die, etc... Now he's a killer, INCLUDING killing his former naive self even maybe (as a villain weakness). And then even maybe have a "good" version of himself, as if in all his "time" in jail he became a devout believer that his ways were wrong, etc... (basically like an old-school priest/... he found a "god in the machine" of time and changed) now he *might* come back to help the heroes, but believes that "god helps those who helps themselves" and will only give the PCs tiny little helps and clues to foil his former selves... and have the time-tech change (get smaller) over the different versions of himself...
In fact... I'd do that and give him different names - to show the change AND confuse the players a little. For example:
PRIMEVIL PETE = assuming that the REST of these time-characters use some sort of time-tech... I'd have just a fun random/time villain (of this same villain), be a caveman version of the time traveller, imbued with time-tech in his blood through some weird backward in time experiment the far future time traveller did... that warped himself into a neanderthal version with time-thermites in his bloodstream... heheh... that might be a fun "origin" story for the original character who was an archeologist or something who found a "Cyber-Raptor" and these old bones (his old self!) with the time-tech in the DNA. Not something HE could make biological, but he could use it like Pym-Particles to power time-tech machines... Just a fun caveman brute type that can TIME TRAVEL too!! Maybe just uses it for super super speed and big damn time-punches!
CODY CLOCK STOPPER = the WWII time traveller that TRIED to be a hero, but just wasn't suited for it, naive but a failure that only gets saved from stuff with his time-tech...
TEMPEST (aka. Mr. Minute) = Modern Day time-crook, who's a little bitter thief but not a killer yet. (I'd have his "main" name be MR MINUTE or CLOCK-CROOK or MR. MEANWHILE, hahah... though and want to be called Tempest, to be more fun like "Paste Pot Pete" who wanted to be called the Trapster, but no one would call him that!)
DR. CHRONULUS "MASTE OF THE MINUTE", "TERRORIST OF TIME" = the "near" future true Mastermind Supervillain, Doc Ock + Magneto. This guy definately would have tons of minions all with time-curcuits but I doubt he'd be trustworthy enough to give any normal supervillain minions he has time-tech. Time-tech is probably ONLY given to his robots or Cyber-Raptors!
BROTHER TOMORROW or TIME TEACHER or FATHER TIME or THE ELDER = Far future master of time who now sees the error of his ways. This guy might have a young sidekick, a squire in training like a Robin/AlterBoy... (like the Carrie/Robin from Dark Knight, a 10 year old girl called EARLY BIRD)
TERMINAL = a far future but ALTERNATE timeline version of "Brother Tomorrow" (or whatever his name is) that is fucking insane like the Joker + Sabertooth with time powers. He might put together a team "Team Terminal" of supers and give them all time/speed units to use. Who all he wants to do is "convict" and execute the other selves for "THE CRIMES OF TIME TREACHERY!!"
The fun of this is you have a virtual "team" of time villains that you could play up... They might even know of each other (the future selves know the youngers better of course) But they all have a "dislike" of the others in different ways, and might even look up to or envy or PITY their future selves. You could have fun giving them all different costumes and sidekicks they've tried over the years. I'm imagining a "Bucky" style young man with a dog sidekick (TICK-TOCK or CLOCK-CANINE or something fun). Then dream up very different cool versions of the others... figure out a KEY point that ties them all together, either a visual thing (they all have blood-shot eyes from the time travel stress) or a personality tick (they all stutter, but elder versions have it under better control only when they get mad). etc..
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Efficiency vs. Concept = Mutually Exclusive??
I think it's a little bit of a cop-out when players suggest that role-playing GAME characters (and the players that build them) should NOT be built EFFICIENTLY.
I used to rail against mini-maxing character stats. I hated playing games (as GM or fellow player) with gamers that knew the rules SO WELL and would squeeze (even bend/cheat the spirit of the rules) the most effectiveness out of stat creation.
After watching and playing with a dozen folks that tended to do that... I "learned" that using the system to maximize the opportunities my character (or NPCs as the GM) should have is not only my responsibility to my character, but also to the group I'm in (ie. the Team).
My caveat (which now I see goes across many of my fellow players): do not bend/break the concept in favor of making efficient rule choices. But do the best you can within the system.
I feel that doing all that one can to build a character toward the theme and the concept does NOT need to be a cop-out at lacking on efficiency in the build.
In a vacuum, two players can make the same character with the same awesome concept.
One can hamstring himself by not focusing and learning and creatively constructing the best options for what the rules can give to the character concept.
While another person can make the same concept using the best options with a little effort and still NOT "break" or even bend the SPIRIT of the rules or game.
In that vacuum, when the PCs come out to play in the game that character (and their player) suffers from the poor building of the first.
Just because the latter build is efficient does not mean it doesn't fit the concept.
Now...
When you BREAK or bend the concept completely in favor of a stat benefit. Then THAT is where I agree with my dislike of "efficiency" in mini-maxing stats.
That's a fine line.
But luckily - it's a big shiny bright line to be able to SEE the concept being broken.
Overall.... I still stink at building uber efficient stats for game characters. I have 3-4 friends that can run circles around me. And that's great! I don't mind. The trick is to do my best to use the rules given so that my character is not SO FAR BEHIND, just because I'm either lazy or purposely hamstringing my PC. It's unfair to the character and the team, in my humble opinion.
So question.
WHY would one build a PC that is not built efficiently as long as the stat creation still holds true to the concept?
A stupid simple but appropriate example:
My friends and I are playing Monopoly. I'm playing the "Thimble". Because I feel a Thimble should not be as fast as the Racecar, I choose to roll D4s instead of D6s like everyone else playing because it represents my concept better. Clearly my concept is met with a average slower speed at moving around the board. But that unnecessary choice hamstrings my chances to get to spaces before my fellow players playing the game...
Comparatively.
In BASH! I can make a character with the concept of using an invisible hand that can grab opponents. I could build it using Telekinesis and rely on the grapple rules or I could simply use the Force Field power.
Why would anyone do that? It doesn't break the concept, it's just efficient and elegant use of the rules.
A character that has a giant hand of force that regularly likes to grab opponents and hold them down could:
- build the power exclusively with Telekinesis
- build the power with the addition of Force Field
With TK alone, say you want to grab a villain and hold them down. The player would need to use their power in combination with the Wrestling rules.
Telekinesis: "Treating Telekinesis as Brawn for damage, lifting, or wrestling and Mind as Agility to hit."
+
Wrestling - Grab: "You grab your enemy and hold them fast. If you succeed, you have the opponent in your iron grip. From this point forward, it is Brawn against Brawn only. Each page, on his panel, your victim can try to break free."
... (then a page later) ...
"Each page, on your panel you may do one of the following moves to a grabbed opponent:"
"Restrain Them: Make a Brawn contest with the foe."
OR...
Simply build it with Force Field:
and "...trap an unwilling target, make a Mind contest against their Defense (Deflect is of no use). The force field lasts until it is destroyed by damage."
Not Efficient vs. Efficient.
Lots of unnecessary rule/rolls for a similar (if not better with FF) conclusion. (Note: that either could be "stunted" with Hero Dice on the other, which is an awesome option of HD)
That's the obvious example that comes to mind. But there are a number of ways that you might build any character inefficiently toward a concept that could be built equally worthy of the concept but a much more efficient use of your points, powers and rule usage.
To step up on my soap box...
(NOTE: not not not against anyone here, especially BASHMAN, whom I respect and think we're actually ON the same page on this)
My problem with mentioning building things toward a concept vs. efficiency is the mistake in thinking they are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape or form.
My problem is (honestly) less with the people that talk about this and more with the MESSAGE it sends to new players to the games. I get concerned that this jaded (and I feel incorrect) talk can color a game-player's attitude and ability before they try.
And many times those folks that say they'd rather build a character more to concept than focus on effectiveness are either doing the game system option/ability to build efficiently a disservice or are speaking from a position of:
- inability (they just aren't good at building)
- unwillingness to try (they don't care about their own PC or the team)
- laziness (they're unwilling to take the time)
- patronization (they think following "concept" is a superior attitude in game-play and won't/haven't consider concept and efficiency aren't exclusive)
I used to rail against mini-maxing character stats. I hated playing games (as GM or fellow player) with gamers that knew the rules SO WELL and would squeeze (even bend/cheat the spirit of the rules) the most effectiveness out of stat creation.
After watching and playing with a dozen folks that tended to do that... I "learned" that using the system to maximize the opportunities my character (or NPCs as the GM) should have is not only my responsibility to my character, but also to the group I'm in (ie. the Team).
My caveat (which now I see goes across many of my fellow players): do not bend/break the concept in favor of making efficient rule choices. But do the best you can within the system.
I feel that doing all that one can to build a character toward the theme and the concept does NOT need to be a cop-out at lacking on efficiency in the build.
In a vacuum, two players can make the same character with the same awesome concept.
One can hamstring himself by not focusing and learning and creatively constructing the best options for what the rules can give to the character concept.
While another person can make the same concept using the best options with a little effort and still NOT "break" or even bend the SPIRIT of the rules or game.
In that vacuum, when the PCs come out to play in the game that character (and their player) suffers from the poor building of the first.
Just because the latter build is efficient does not mean it doesn't fit the concept.
Now...
When you BREAK or bend the concept completely in favor of a stat benefit. Then THAT is where I agree with my dislike of "efficiency" in mini-maxing stats.
That's a fine line.
But luckily - it's a big shiny bright line to be able to SEE the concept being broken.
Overall.... I still stink at building uber efficient stats for game characters. I have 3-4 friends that can run circles around me. And that's great! I don't mind. The trick is to do my best to use the rules given so that my character is not SO FAR BEHIND, just because I'm either lazy or purposely hamstringing my PC. It's unfair to the character and the team, in my humble opinion.
So question.
WHY would one build a PC that is not built efficiently as long as the stat creation still holds true to the concept?
A stupid simple but appropriate example:
My friends and I are playing Monopoly. I'm playing the "Thimble". Because I feel a Thimble should not be as fast as the Racecar, I choose to roll D4s instead of D6s like everyone else playing because it represents my concept better. Clearly my concept is met with a average slower speed at moving around the board. But that unnecessary choice hamstrings my chances to get to spaces before my fellow players playing the game...
Comparatively.
In BASH! I can make a character with the concept of using an invisible hand that can grab opponents. I could build it using Telekinesis and rely on the grapple rules or I could simply use the Force Field power.
Why would anyone do that? It doesn't break the concept, it's just efficient and elegant use of the rules.
A character that has a giant hand of force that regularly likes to grab opponents and hold them down could:
- build the power exclusively with Telekinesis
- build the power with the addition of Force Field
With TK alone, say you want to grab a villain and hold them down. The player would need to use their power in combination with the Wrestling rules.
Telekinesis: "Treating Telekinesis as Brawn for damage, lifting, or wrestling and Mind as Agility to hit."
+
Wrestling - Grab: "You grab your enemy and hold them fast. If you succeed, you have the opponent in your iron grip. From this point forward, it is Brawn against Brawn only. Each page, on his panel, your victim can try to break free."
... (then a page later) ...
"Each page, on your panel you may do one of the following moves to a grabbed opponent:"
"Restrain Them: Make a Brawn contest with the foe."
OR...
Simply build it with Force Field:
and "...trap an unwilling target, make a Mind contest against their Defense (Deflect is of no use). The force field lasts until it is destroyed by damage."
Not Efficient vs. Efficient.
Lots of unnecessary rule/rolls for a similar (if not better with FF) conclusion. (Note: that either could be "stunted" with Hero Dice on the other, which is an awesome option of HD)
That's the obvious example that comes to mind. But there are a number of ways that you might build any character inefficiently toward a concept that could be built equally worthy of the concept but a much more efficient use of your points, powers and rule usage.
To step up on my soap box...
(NOTE: not not not against anyone here, especially BASHMAN, whom I respect and think we're actually ON the same page on this)
My problem with mentioning building things toward a concept vs. efficiency is the mistake in thinking they are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape or form.
My problem is (honestly) less with the people that talk about this and more with the MESSAGE it sends to new players to the games. I get concerned that this jaded (and I feel incorrect) talk can color a game-player's attitude and ability before they try.
And many times those folks that say they'd rather build a character more to concept than focus on effectiveness are either doing the game system option/ability to build efficiently a disservice or are speaking from a position of:
- inability (they just aren't good at building)
- unwillingness to try (they don't care about their own PC or the team)
- laziness (they're unwilling to take the time)
- patronization (they think following "concept" is a superior attitude in game-play and won't/haven't consider concept and efficiency aren't exclusive)
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Planet Busting in supers games
Some superhero settings feature truly cosmic levels of power. While, in my experience, it is most often easier to simply treat such massively powerful beings as plot devices, sometimes it’s fun to consider the limits of the game system in terms of modeling them. Case in point: how many ranks of Damage would you need to destroy the Earth in the third edition of Mutants & Masterminds?
Now, a lot of it depends on how we define “destroy.” For the same of discussion, let’s stipulate the following:
- •The Earth is an “object” in game terms (albeit a big one). So it is subject to the rules for damaging objects.
- •While made of a variety of materials, we’ll consider the Earth’s base Toughness that of stone: rank 5.
- •The “thickness” of the Earth is its diameter: 7,901 miles. That’s technically a distance rank of 20, since it’s shy of the 8,000 miles value of rank 21. Since an object’s Toughness equals its base rank + (distance rank + 7), that would make Earth’s Toughness rank 5 + (20 + 7) or 32.
- •Let’s say that the Earth’s Toughness is also Impervious, so nothing less than Damage 17 even has a chance of damaging the planet as a whole. Anything else might mess up the landscape, but that’s all.
So, the minimum Damage rank (17) has a resistance DC of (17 + 15) or 32, the same as the planet’s Toughness value, meaning the resistance check pretty much can’t fail.
But wait: let’s assume the “attacker” is going to take the option of making an attack check, since the Earth is a pretty massive object. It’s not like he’s going to miss! That’s good for a critical hit and +5 Damage. Likewise, let’s assume the attacker goes for a Power Attack for –2 to the attack check and +2 Damage.
That ramps the Damage up to 24, or DC 39. Now the GM needs to roll a 7 or better for the planet to suffer no serious damage. A 6 or less means a Toughness reduction, while a 2 or less (for a Toughness check total of 34 or less) actually means two degrees of failure: the attack blows a hole clear through the planet! While that doesn’t shatter the Earth in one blow, it probably means the end of life as we know it as the molten core bursts out and floods the surface.
(Indeed, if we were being really pedantic about this, we could probably stipulate the Earth’s “thickness” as that of the rocky mantle—mere tens of miles—since any attack that blasts through that will unleash the high-pressure molten magma from the core. But I digress...)
Ramping things up further, a Damage 20 attack, made with a successful attack check, a full Power Attack (+5 Damage), and some extra effort (for +1 Damage) does a whopping Damage 31, DC 46. The planet needs a die roll of 14 or better to avoid damage altogether. A roll of 9 or less means a hole punched right through the planet, while a roll of 4 or less shatters the entire planet in a single blast! So it’s quite possible for some high-level characters to at least threaten Earth-sized planets, to say nothing of smaller moons or the like. Take the Damage rank up by even 5–6 and the attacker has even odds of smashing planets with single attacks!
Setting expectations, violence isn't the only way to victory
[supers] Setting expectations, violence isn't the only way to victory
Superhero stories are different than many other fantasy genres. Because of that role-playing games, the NPCs, and the players "need" to understand the differences before playing their characters and helping co-create and tell the story of the RPG sessions.
One problem I run up against in playing superhero games that frustrates me sometimes is players who think more on the "traditional" style of game play (and story) that they've played out with so many other RPGs. ... Namely the "remove them from the battlefield" mentality that often results in "kill them" actions that we're all very familiar with in our traditional D&D fantasy fare.
Not only do (many) players resort to "take them out" by physical "beat the heck out of the bad guy" methods alone but they also get frustrated when they see (assume) that a villain or threat seems to be "unbalanced" to their character's "power level" - the result of a problem created by the extreme effort to BALANCE game mechanics that (I've seen) happen in game design over the last 10 years.
Some players can't "enjoy" the story because they're too busy wondering what "power level" the villain is at or why the "minions" didn't go down in one hit.
I find this frustrating and confusing (to the players) unnecessarily especially in Superhero games.
Because in superhero comic stories the villains are OFTEN way more powerful than the hero team. Many times the heroes are up against odds that are overwhelming. Sometimes those odds are meant and welcome to be challenged through various means such as:
- [B]Team Actions[/B]: many rule systems allow for team tactics to increase combat effect.
- [B]Non-physical Actions[/B]: sometimes villains are just invulnerable and need to be "beaten" through other methods such as mental powers, restraining circumstances, or even role-playing to convince the villain to stand down.
- [B]Achilles' Heel[/B]: often the only way to beat a villain is to discover its Achilles' heal, which might be an actual combat point or a social conflict that stops the villain.
- [B]Out of Juice[/B]: sometimes the Achilles' Heel is a more specific "timetable" in which the villain needs to "win" by getting the mission done BEFORE running out of power, or ending whatever timeline they're dealing with.
- [B]Job's Done[/B]: many/most villains in comics (especially the lower tier crooks) are often ONLY in the battle for the mission. Whether it be the prize/money or the achievement. Not all villains fight to the death and many comic villains actually have their own codes! Surprisingly to many players not every villain WILL kill in battle!
- [B]It's ALIVE![/B]: sometimes the entire point of a story (RPG = encounter) is the "origin story" (creation) of a new villain! So sometimes their is a deus ex machina that stops the villain at that point.
- [B]Villain Fight[/B]: another classic "endgame" of the villains is that they squabble and fight each other or the big bad decides to "eliminate" his foolish minions for their incollence.
Anyway...
I get frustrated in games when players don't understand, don't consider, or even scoff at the fact a villain can't/won't or doesn't need to be taken down by punching them in the head, and/or KILLING them - to "remove" them from the battlefield like a Chess Board.
Two questions.
#1. Adding to my ideas above. What other options have you seen/read or experienced that villains in superhero comics can be beaten beyond being punched in the head until all the hit points are gone?
#2. How would you get those points across to players starting a superhero game? Without hamfisting the "win method" in each story/encounter by hinting heavily that their may be another way to BEAT the villain, how would you make sure the players REMEMBER those options and try them?
looking forward to thoughts
-kev-
Superhero stories are different than many other fantasy genres. Because of that role-playing games, the NPCs, and the players "need" to understand the differences before playing their characters and helping co-create and tell the story of the RPG sessions.
One problem I run up against in playing superhero games that frustrates me sometimes is players who think more on the "traditional" style of game play (and story) that they've played out with so many other RPGs. ... Namely the "remove them from the battlefield" mentality that often results in "kill them" actions that we're all very familiar with in our traditional D&D fantasy fare.
Not only do (many) players resort to "take them out" by physical "beat the heck out of the bad guy" methods alone but they also get frustrated when they see (assume) that a villain or threat seems to be "unbalanced" to their character's "power level" - the result of a problem created by the extreme effort to BALANCE game mechanics that (I've seen) happen in game design over the last 10 years.
Some players can't "enjoy" the story because they're too busy wondering what "power level" the villain is at or why the "minions" didn't go down in one hit.
I find this frustrating and confusing (to the players) unnecessarily especially in Superhero games.
Because in superhero comic stories the villains are OFTEN way more powerful than the hero team. Many times the heroes are up against odds that are overwhelming. Sometimes those odds are meant and welcome to be challenged through various means such as:
- [B]Team Actions[/B]: many rule systems allow for team tactics to increase combat effect.
- [B]Non-physical Actions[/B]: sometimes villains are just invulnerable and need to be "beaten" through other methods such as mental powers, restraining circumstances, or even role-playing to convince the villain to stand down.
- [B]Achilles' Heel[/B]: often the only way to beat a villain is to discover its Achilles' heal, which might be an actual combat point or a social conflict that stops the villain.
- [B]Out of Juice[/B]: sometimes the Achilles' Heel is a more specific "timetable" in which the villain needs to "win" by getting the mission done BEFORE running out of power, or ending whatever timeline they're dealing with.
- [B]Job's Done[/B]: many/most villains in comics (especially the lower tier crooks) are often ONLY in the battle for the mission. Whether it be the prize/money or the achievement. Not all villains fight to the death and many comic villains actually have their own codes! Surprisingly to many players not every villain WILL kill in battle!
- [B]It's ALIVE![/B]: sometimes the entire point of a story (RPG = encounter) is the "origin story" (creation) of a new villain! So sometimes their is a deus ex machina that stops the villain at that point.
- [B]Villain Fight[/B]: another classic "endgame" of the villains is that they squabble and fight each other or the big bad decides to "eliminate" his foolish minions for their incollence.
Anyway...
I get frustrated in games when players don't understand, don't consider, or even scoff at the fact a villain can't/won't or doesn't need to be taken down by punching them in the head, and/or KILLING them - to "remove" them from the battlefield like a Chess Board.
Two questions.
#1. Adding to my ideas above. What other options have you seen/read or experienced that villains in superhero comics can be beaten beyond being punched in the head until all the hit points are gone?
#2. How would you get those points across to players starting a superhero game? Without hamfisting the "win method" in each story/encounter by hinting heavily that their may be another way to BEAT the villain, how would you make sure the players REMEMBER those options and try them?
looking forward to thoughts
-kev-
Fuck that noise!
I'm not opposed to "cursing" in normal life. I'm not a foul-mouthed sailor-man either... It doesn't offend me, though I know when it's appropriate and not in real life.
However, in game play ...
I get *shocked* out of game and dislike when players use swear words that are NOT in the style/fiction of the game world. I would get frustrated if a player or NPC started saying "Fuck this, cocksucker...", etc...
I'd rather the player say "Blork that" or some other word that the group establishes as in-game fictional curse words.
So... our modern colloquialisms bug me when used inappropriately in settings. That said... playing in a White Wolf modern game having a pissed off PC/NPC go on a cursing rant "Pissant, cocksucking, Fucktard fuckers!! Eat shit and die!!" is perfectly in-game to me.
For example...
In an Iron Kingdoms game I GMed, I actually mentioned this when a player said "fuck" and asked them to use "Farg" instead (a word I made up on the spot) to represent the curse word "fuck" in that game... because "fuck" took me out of it... LOL
I'm weird that way!
I'm wondering what other folks think/do for this... Or if it's even ever been something you've considered.
However, in game play ...
I get *shocked* out of game and dislike when players use swear words that are NOT in the style/fiction of the game world. I would get frustrated if a player or NPC started saying "Fuck this, cocksucker...", etc...
I'd rather the player say "Blork that" or some other word that the group establishes as in-game fictional curse words.
So... our modern colloquialisms bug me when used inappropriately in settings. That said... playing in a White Wolf modern game having a pissed off PC/NPC go on a cursing rant "Pissant, cocksucking, Fucktard fuckers!! Eat shit and die!!" is perfectly in-game to me.
For example...
In an Iron Kingdoms game I GMed, I actually mentioned this when a player said "fuck" and asked them to use "Farg" instead (a word I made up on the spot) to represent the curse word "fuck" in that game... because "fuck" took me out of it... LOL
I'm weird that way!
I'm wondering what other folks think/do for this... Or if it's even ever been something you've considered.
Creating a life...
a truly nice breakdown of how the central act of traditional roleplaying is supposed to work.
You're not just making a story: you're bringing a character to life, and allowing that life to be challenged - and that collaboration creates the story, the drama, and the unique joy of rpgs.
You're not just making a story: you're bringing a character to life, and allowing that life to be challenged - and that collaboration creates the story, the drama, and the unique joy of rpgs.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Secret Origins - repost of Jeff Grubb blog
Friday, February 05, 2010
Secret Origins
1) What was to become the Marvel Super Heroes game was originally a homebrew super hero game I ran in college as a break between D&D campaigns. At that time I called it Project Marvel Comics. It was set in the Marvel Universe (a smaller place back then in the late 70s, when there was one X-men book and it had until recently been bi-monthly), in West Lafayette, Indiana, home of Purdue University, my alma mater.
2) The heroes were all members of the Junior Achievement branch of the Avengers (this was before the West Coast Avengers or others of that ilk). They were all original heroes, with guest stars from the Marvel Universe. The group of heroes (both in campaigns at Purdue and later in Pittsburgh) included such luminaries as Big Man on Campus, The Crimson Ram, Carl the Firebreather, and Super-Pin, the pro-bowler of steel. It was a pretty light-hearted game that involved destruction of large chunks of the wherever we were playing. Eventually the heroes got to visit New York City, where they met Spider-Man and fought Mayor Koch. I originally intended that to work out the other way around, but that was the nature of the campaign.
3) Soon after I joined TSR in Lake Geneva, all the designers were asked for "Blue Sky" projects - what they would do given their druthers. I did not suggest PMC first. Instead I suggested a very dark cyberpunk campaign (this would be, 1982 or so). Very dark and bleak. So bleak that it ate a hole through the bottom of the file cabinet. The management came back and asked what my second choice was. At this point I suggested Marvel Super Heroes.
4) The two dominant Super-Hero games at that time were Villains and Vigilantes, which was relatively light and popular in the East Coast and Midwest, and Champions, with was number-crunchy and popular in the West. I liked both games - V&V had my favorite power - Mollusk Control. Champions was very much about fine-tuning your character and was the first RPG I encountered that encouraged serious min/maxing of the characters.
5) About that time, Mayfair games announced they had the license to do an RPG for Marvel. TSR double-checked and found that they did not have the license. TSR then got the license with Marvel. Mayfair soon afterwards got the license for DC. When their game came out, I gave it a nice review in DRAGON magazine. Mayfair used part of that review in its marketing. I was asked TSR's management not to write any more reviews.
6) FASERIP was the listing of the stats of the game - Fighting, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Reason, Intelligence, and Psyche. In the original PMC it was FASECMT - Fatigue, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Cosmic, Magic, and Technology. We also had FEATs - Functions of Exception Ability or Talents. Very Marvel Universe.
7) Karma, a spendable experience point that could be used to increase abilities or modify die rolls, was a descendant of the Hero Points from the earlier Top Secret game, but more granular.
8) The original PMC was more number-crunchy in its first incarnation. We quickly moved to what would become the Universal Table, a color-coded chart that was the one-stop shop for task and combat resolution. It is a descendant of the old Combat Result Table from Avalon Hill and SPI wargames.
9) Once I started working on the game for TSR, I think I went through about five different version of the Universal Table during the design at TSR before ending up with the one you see in the game. I would lay one out on Monday, Zeb Cook would shoot holes in it Tuesday, and I would try again Wednesday. I think it was five versions - it only feels like a dozen.
10) Original credits for MSH (later called Basic Marvel or the Yellow Box) were Jeff Grubb and Steve Winter. I did the mechanics and very rough draft, and Steve turned it into the Marvel style text. I think he did a great job at it, and that's why we're co-creators on the original, a veritable Claremont and Byrne.
11) We playtested the rules in-house with other designers. They also playtested it with kids, about 9 or 10. They videotaped the playtest, and made me watch it. I think they had to tie me into the chair. It was very illuminating about how kids used the game, but I really hope someone burned that tape.
12) It took longer to work out the licensing deal than it did to design the game. In the end, we were at the printer, ready to run, waiting for the final language for the legal statement.
13) The game was almost called "Marvel Comic Book Heroes". Our marketing department changed it because that was what people thought of when they thought of Marvel - comic books. I protested and was told that they didn't want "everybody and the janitor" getting involved in the marketing process. I ended up in a couple comic book shops in the Wisconsin and Illinois area with a questionnaire to disprove their point.
14) I would take liberties with the legal indicia (the mouse-print in the front of the book) on future projects. I think I used the phrase "Mess with Hulk's Lawyers, and Hulk will smash!" and that one got through, and soon afterwards I stopped writing the legal indica.
15) The original game got a mixed critical response. The reviews of the time were of the type of "Well, its OK if you like that sort of thing" or "It's a little basic" (well, yes. Yes it was). Champions did a very nice job holding down the very-complex end of the spectrum, and this one was going to be easier to run and play. One review dinged us for our "Face-front, True Believer" tone. A few years later, when we did the more hobby-market Advanced set (the Blue Box), the same reviewer complained that he missed the "Face front, True Believer" tone of the original.
16) The contract called for a dozen products from TSR in the first year. We were unsure if that meant a calender year or a full year from the first product. That was one reason we had so many early products, 16-32 pages in length. We had the advantage that we had the entire Marvel Universe to play with.
17) We were also an early pioneer for full-color maps in the gaming product, since the game used area movement. The city maps could be eventually fitted together into a larger city. It was kinda New York, but I made the mistake of making the numbered streets East-West instead of North-south. The businesses were all named after other people in the company, until someone in management found out that didn't like the idea and we stopped.
18) I was incredibly excited when we got John Byrne to do a cover for us - Murderworld. On the back of his original art were some sketches re-drawing the TSR logo.
19) Working with Marvel was great. In those days, all the art was in a warehouse "across the river". To get pick-up art, I could ask by issue and page number, and they would send out the stats. It was very easy, and the process made it possible for us to do a lot of things very quickly.
20) Another Murderworld story - Someone at Marvel's legal department asked us to put all the trademarked names in ALL CAPS. We pointed out this was a bad idea but they insisted, which is why the names in Murderworld are in ALL CAPS. After they saw the product in print, they changed their minds and we went back to the original presentation.
21) Marvel owned all the characters, of course. I created one character, Cascade, for an Alpha Flight adventure. They never picked him up. Pity.
22) When we did the Basic MSH, Marvel didn't want us to put in any character generation - they wanted people to play Marvel character (which makes sense). We put in a rudimentary system in the back. When it came time to do the Advanced Set, Marvel sent the note "Whatever you do, be sure to put in a character generation system. That's what fans really want to see." I'm not bashing on Marvel here - they were learning like we were learning.
23) MSH did a wonderful job opening the doors of the comic book shops to RPGs. It arrived at a great time, when local direct-sale shops were blossoming, and looking for ways to expand. I'm sure a lot of them would have picked up D&D on their own, but it provided a nice bridge.
24) The first time we showed up as a company at the Chicago Comics Con (then in a hotel in Rosemont), we had a table in the hallway outside the main dealer's hall, and were armed with a map, a tripod with a picture of the cover on it, and some metal miniatures. We gave away a lot of Wolverine miniatures at Comics Con to people who would play our demo, and to this day people tell me they got a miniature from me.
25) The Ultimate Powers Book came about because one of our editor's boyfriends was in the office, making a list of every superpower he could think of. One of the managers found out about this and thought it was a great idea, and that was how the UPB came about. That sort of thing happened more often than you would think.
26) Similarly, the Official Gaming Handbooks came about from the same sort of inspiration - A manager reasoned that Marvel must have computer files of all the text from the original Official Handbooks of the Marvel Universe (OHOTMU), so all we have to do is add the game stats. Unfortunately, Marvel DIDN'T have all the text in a computer file, and we had to input it all in. In-house, we referred to the large books as "The Phone Books" since they were the size and shape of the Lake Geneva White Pages.
27) Early on, we had a knack for publishing things that were immediately outdated in comic book continuity. We would publish a map of the Baxter Building and they would blow it up. We would do an Alpha Flight adventure and they would change the line-up dramatically. Peter David once suggested we do a New Universe adventure so they could wipe out the line (they did, eventually, without my help).
28) Most of the fan comments I got about Marvel over the years fit into three categories:
1) I love your game!29) Eventually, I drifted off to other projects, and the responsibility for running the line moved to Steven Schend, who did a great job through the phone books and later projects. He was also our next door neighbor in Lake Geneva. Thanks, Steve!
2) I love your game, and here's how to fix it!
3) I play Champions, but I buy all your stuff to convert it over!
30) We ran the Marvel-Phile articles in Dragon magazine for what seems like forever - so much so that I became a "Contributing Editor" on the masthead. The main purpose for the articles were to cover characters that changed suddenly, or character that would never show up in a regular product (say, Howard the Duck). We even did ROM, Spaceknight, which resulted in Marvel and Hasbro getting together to figure out who actually owned the character.
Finally, my best Marvel games were always ones were people brought their own heroes into the world of Marvel Comics, mixing their own stories with the "established continuity". It was a blast, and I really enjoyed it, and it feels very good to know that the game still has a warm spot in a lot of gamers' hearts.
OK, enough being old school and nostalgic.
More later,
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
As your Lawyer I advise...
There are a million more nuances, approaches, styles, tricks procedures...but that's it: Say yes & Don't invest.
Honorary mentions and tangential formulations: be a good person, be a good friend, bring the enthusiasm, bring the awesome, be a fan of the characters.
Be involved and engaged, ready to go when it's my turn, and able to cede my turn to the other players once I'm done. Pass the spotlight around.
Gaming is about hanging out with friends, not playing by rules. Once the latter gets in the way of the former, you've stopped gaming.
Remember, the players aren't your enemies. They're your entertainment: give them room, and they will find ways to be either awesome or awesomely stupid; either way, I get entertained.
Don't get bogged down with the rules, especially when it comes to skills. If you don't know the rule, and can't find the rule in about 5 flips of the page, roll versus the most applicable statistic, and maybe apply a quick modifier.
Let the players do cool shit in combat, like swinging on the chandelier. You'll spend most of your time in combat anyway, so you might as well make it more interesting than "i attack, i hit, i do 7 damage".
Reward good description and good roleplay with mechanical benefits, no matter the system, no matter the situation.
Make a normal, average everyday GMPC that tags along with the characters to do some mundane thing that the players can't be bothered spending the XP on to learn, like pilot the boat or fence stolen goods, but is otherwise useless.
Speak in funny voices.
For playing, trust your GM.
Be on the same page as your GM and the other players.
If you're playing bad guys, be bad constructively for the game. In fact, always favor constructive actions that help the game, whether good or evil or in between.
Don't roll unless both success and failure will mean something interesting.
Try to stay focused on the game. It doesn't have to be constant laser focus, but makes it suck for everyone else.
Let the other players play as well.
Honorary mentions and tangential formulations: be a good person, be a good friend, bring the enthusiasm, bring the awesome, be a fan of the characters.
Be involved and engaged, ready to go when it's my turn, and able to cede my turn to the other players once I'm done. Pass the spotlight around.
Gaming is about hanging out with friends, not playing by rules. Once the latter gets in the way of the former, you've stopped gaming.
Remember, the players aren't your enemies. They're your entertainment: give them room, and they will find ways to be either awesome or awesomely stupid; either way, I get entertained.
Don't get bogged down with the rules, especially when it comes to skills. If you don't know the rule, and can't find the rule in about 5 flips of the page, roll versus the most applicable statistic, and maybe apply a quick modifier.
Let the players do cool shit in combat, like swinging on the chandelier. You'll spend most of your time in combat anyway, so you might as well make it more interesting than "i attack, i hit, i do 7 damage".
Reward good description and good roleplay with mechanical benefits, no matter the system, no matter the situation.
Make a normal, average everyday GMPC that tags along with the characters to do some mundane thing that the players can't be bothered spending the XP on to learn, like pilot the boat or fence stolen goods, but is otherwise useless.
Speak in funny voices.
For playing, trust your GM.
Be on the same page as your GM and the other players.
If you're playing bad guys, be bad constructively for the game. In fact, always favor constructive actions that help the game, whether good or evil or in between.
Don't roll unless both success and failure will mean something interesting.
Try to stay focused on the game. It doesn't have to be constant laser focus, but makes it suck for everyone else.
Let the other players play as well.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)